BF2S Forums Playstation 3 clusters used to hack MD5

Miggle wrote:

Zimmer wrote:

Miggle wrote:

http://dl.getdropbox.com/u/44874/MGS3.png

lolwut?

Fail. Try playing it.

hoping you wouldn't say that.

got 25 for a little while and it crashed.

But emulators require far more powerful computers than their console counterparts, they're doing a hell of a lot more than just running the game.

Haha.

Game didn't crash but I got epic sound distortion and 15FPS max.

Grid computing is the way of the future. They are so much cheaper than super computers it's laughable.

DeathUnlimited wrote:

4-way 9800GX2 rigs are the most efficient stuff, not PS3's.

A. That isn't processing power.
B. We weren't talking graphics.
C. Graphics cards aren't exactly the way to do cryptography.

Zimmer wrote:

Uzique wrote:

I'm still not buying the rabid console fanboyism here.

So you're telling me IBM and all the supercomputer researchers have been doing it wrong all along? We didn't need billion dollar number-crunchers, we needed a few PS2's hooked up together or a few N64's in a nice little rack-farm? Lolz. To me the main reason people care about this 'breakthrough' in MD5 security is because it has been performed on a gimmick of a PS3 farm... aka PS3/Sony publicity. Sony probably covered their research costs just so they could sit back and look like uber-specced smug cunts when the news article hits the headlines.

Where is the rabid console fanboyism? Can you stop shoving shit in your paragraphs which is irrelevant?

I don't own a PS3, nor do I need one one at the moment.

You really are ignorant at points. Where do you think the CELL came from? You idiot. IBM and Toshiba designed the Cell.... Get your facts straight before you come along with all this.

The Cell has 8 cores compared to the 4 of the most current CPU. Each of them acting independently as a 3.2GHz processor.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cell_(microprocessor)#Supercomputing

Aw, what was that? Yeah, you are wrong and you have no idea about what you are talking about. Kindly leave before you get owned more.

Hey Zimmer, put your knickers back on and stop being such a cunt because I used the term "fanboy". My point remains the same minus the "irrelevant" tags, consoles aren't superior to conventional supercomputers in most applications- Aries made a nice point about GPU cores being more efficient and cost-wise for certain tasks, and I suppose this is either a case of that or simply a semi-publicity related showcase of the PS3.

I never said IBM didn't design the console processor, can you stop shoving irrelevant shit into your own posts please? I merely said (sarcastically) that we've been doing it wrong all along building conventional supercomputers with the PC/server-esque architecture rather than wiring a load of console units together. I know everyone likes an opportunity to wave their ring-a-ding around every now and then but please, try harder, your post seems so contrivedly inflammatory.

tl;dr: Suck my cunt.

Last edited by Uzique (2009-01-02 17:08:31)

Uzique wrote:

Zimmer wrote:

Uzique wrote:

I'm still not buying the rabid console fanboyism here.

So you're telling me IBM and all the supercomputer researchers have been doing it wrong all along? We didn't need billion dollar number-crunchers, we needed a few PS2's hooked up together or a few N64's in a nice little rack-farm? Lolz. To me the main reason people care about this 'breakthrough' in MD5 security is because it has been performed on a gimmick of a PS3 farm... aka PS3/Sony publicity. Sony probably covered their research costs just so they could sit back and look like uber-specced smug cunts when the news article hits the headlines.

Where is the rabid console fanboyism? Can you stop shoving shit in your paragraphs which is irrelevant?

I don't own a PS3, nor do I need one one at the moment.

You really are ignorant at points. Where do you think the CELL came from? You idiot. IBM and Toshiba designed the Cell.... Get your facts straight before you come along with all this.

The Cell has 8 cores compared to the 4 of the most current CPU. Each of them acting independently as a 3.2GHz processor.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cell_(microprocessor)#Supercomputing

Aw, what was that? Yeah, you are wrong and you have no idea about what you are talking about. Kindly leave before you get owned more.

Hey Zimmer, put your knickers back on and stop being such a cunt because I used the term "fanboy". My point remains the same minus the "irrelevant" tags, consoles aren't superior to conventional supercomputers in most applications- Aries made a nice point about GPU cores being more efficient and cost-wise for certain tasks, and I suppose this is either a case of that or simply a semi-publicity related showcase of the PS3.

I never said IBM didn't design the console processor, can you stop shoving irrelevant shit into your own posts please? I merely said (sarcastically) that we've been doing it wrong all along building conventional supercomputers with the PC/server-esque architecture rather than wiring a load of console units together. I know everyone likes an opportunity to wave their ring-a-ding around every now and then but please, try harder, your post seems so contrivedly inflammatory.

tl;dr: Suck my cunt.

But we never mentioned supercomputers in the first place. It was a perfect example of what a PS3 can do with it's power and you had to add extra unecessary comments. We never said they would outrun supercomputers. I said it was certainly more powerful than a desktop.... See, that is where I just lost you... The article never claimed it was going to take over the supercomputer world or do anything of the sort, all it said was that it would take a normal desktop 32 years.

And Max's computer is certainly not a supercomputer.

When it comes down to cryptography, this was probably a much cheaper way of achieving the result than using a supercomputer...

All I was doing was telling you that you were wrong. This isn't most applications. I never mentioned a supercomputer. You did.

@ CraZed : yeah, I have.... But that isn't made for cryptography, and my point still stands that we were talking about CPUs, not GPUs.

DeathUnlimited wrote:

CrazeD wrote:

Zimmer wrote:

A. That isn't processing power.
B. We weren't talking graphics.
C. Graphics cards aren't exactly the way to do cryptography.

D. You haven't heard of FASTRA, or CUDA for that matter.

With CUDA, GPU's are doing a lot more than just playing games now.

This is what I meant. Graphics cards = Processing power, and excellent for cryptography too.

Zimmer wrote:

And Max's computer is certainly not a supercomputer.

It is a modern day CUDA supercomputer. These have made traditional million dollar supercomputers obsolete by doing the same for far, far less price.


As a matter of fact, Zimmer, you should join this thing called BF2s F@H group and you could use your 8800GTS for science. It has great deal of processing power.

Once you find a cure to Alzheimers or Huntingtons, call me.

DeathUnlimited wrote:

Zimmer wrote:

Once you find a cure to Alzheimers or Huntingtons, call me.

You never know.

Nope, not in my lifetime, I wont. Not being negative or anything, just being realistic. I hope your computer finds the cure.

And prevention is just as good as a cure.

I found the cure for Alzheimers, but forgot it.

Uzique wrote:

I don't really get it...

Bit of a gimmick, no?

Why use several hundred PS3's when any other IT research group would just use a supercomputer?

Sony slipping these guys a few thousand research-funding bucks for the publicity?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cell_(microprocessor)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_Roadrunner

used in the worlds fastest super computer.

there are around 70 in the MD5 hack, thats what about £35k. You have no idea how fucking cheap that is for a super computer. The IBM roadrunner cost $133 million.

Last edited by Vilham (2009-01-02 20:56:32)

Ryan wrote:

Toilet Sex wrote:

Zimmer wrote:

A. That isn't processing power.
B. We weren't talking graphics.
C. Graphics cards aren't exactly the way to do cryptography.

D. You can get like 250,000 fps on CoD4 though.

Great. Just an extra 249,40 fps that you don't need.

Negative. It isn't enough.

CrazeD wrote:

Ryan wrote:

Toilet Sex wrote:

D. You can get like 250,000 fps on CoD4 though.

Great. Just an extra 249,40 fps that you don't need.

When my PC sucks enough to have to live with 60FPS, that's when I stop gaming.

I limit my FPS to 60.

And to Zimmer and the others, shut up. All processing power is processing power, it's just a matter of what kind of processing power. Your CPU can't efficiently render graphics, and your GPU can't efficiently run an x86 OS. The PS3 happens to be bloody awesome at doing just cryptography, but it can't run anything x86 better than a jar of pickles soaked in jell-o. That's the same reason why emulators don't work well. Computers just aren't good at that stuff.

PS3s can for example run folding@home with pretty good performance, but an 8800GT with 1/10th of the power will still produce many times more results. That's just because graphics cards are better at the kind of calculations needed in folding@home.